Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Proof of evolution!!!
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 5 of 110 (263930)
11-28-2005 8:31 PM


Do computers self-replicate?
Oh, no, they don't?
Well, thread's over. Guido loses again. WTFPWND!!! Oh noes!!!!11!1oneone!! Bad analogies FTL!

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Christian7, posted 11-28-2005 8:46 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 7 by Christian7, posted 11-28-2005 8:49 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 9 of 110 (263941)
11-28-2005 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Christian7
11-28-2005 8:49 PM


Just as things made of sillicon do not link up and form next generation composites, protiens do not have this ability.
Says you. The truth, of course, is exactly the opposite. Not only do proteins self-assemble in the cell, classes of proteins exist that assemble copies of themselves from other protein sequences.
But, just like a creationist, you've moved the goalposts. You lost the argument about evolution in the space of a single post, so naturally you're trying to move the argument to abiogenesis.
I mean, I fuckin' took you out. In a single stroke, in an instant, like a Toshiro Mifune movie. I carved your post up like an Easter ham. So, naturally, you're trying to pretend that your humiliating defeat didn't just happen, and that it was your intent to talk about abiogenesis all along. Well, tough titties. You don't have what it takes to win there, either. And this isn't the thread or forum for it. You should have specified that the biochemical origins of life was your subject from the beginning. But that blunder has cost you dearly, indeed.
Here's what I just did to you. Pretend that you're watching from the point of view of your argument.
I'm sorry, am I bragging too much? There's not really much else to do in this thread. It's ridiculous that it was even promoted in the first place. Move it to the coffeehouse; no serious discussion is going to happen here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Christian7, posted 11-28-2005 8:49 PM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Christian7, posted 11-29-2005 6:10 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 23 of 110 (264286)
11-29-2005 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Christian7
11-29-2005 6:10 PM


Wrong. Organelles do not create themselves.
I believe it was proteins we were talking about.
Try to stay on-topic, ok?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Christian7, posted 11-29-2005 6:10 PM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Christian7, posted 11-30-2005 8:44 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 29 of 110 (264330)
11-29-2005 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by mike the wiz
11-29-2005 9:01 PM


Re: Lam and Crash acting children
If you don't see the ridiculousness of a situation where one could not infer the presence of intelligent artifact design on a planet full of intelligent designers, then I don't understand what there is to discuss.
The reason we reject intelligent design for the origin of life is because there are no known designers except for humans (and some other modern organisms), and none of them were around 4 billion years ago. It's pretty simple, really.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by mike the wiz, posted 11-29-2005 9:01 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by mike the wiz, posted 11-29-2005 9:36 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 38 by Phat, posted 11-30-2005 10:30 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 41 by Ragged, posted 11-30-2005 4:04 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 49 by ohnhai, posted 11-30-2005 9:20 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 37 of 110 (264413)
11-30-2005 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Silent H
11-30-2005 6:32 AM


Re: Lam and Crash acting children
Yeah a real teacher shouldn't rub salt into a wound, but then again crash wasn't hired to be this guy's teacher at some accredited university, he was delivering a nice lecture at the school of hard knocks. A little salt is just fine there, and may prevent the person from making the same mistake twice.
As long as crash delivered the logic and evidence required, why can't he add on something funny?
Thank you, Holmes, that's quite generous of you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Silent H, posted 11-30-2005 6:32 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Silent H, posted 11-30-2005 12:55 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024